Congratulations BBC on the Weathershow. This was shown at 7.30A.M. on Sunday morning, Jan 1st and I fear that many of my friends and colleagues might have missed this show, after seeing the New Year in. Happily they can all pick it up again on their computers with iPlayer.
This was a revue of the weather in 2011. It was explained that La Nina was exceptionally cold at the beginning of the year and this weather system moving across the South Pacific collided with the warmer air over Australia with the result that Queensland was devastated by enormous floods. Here we see clearly Great Nature strutting her stuff.
This was not the only result of this weather system, as hurricanes and tornadoes battered a USA, which was exceptionally cold in the first 3 months, followed by exceptional heat in Texas later on. In fact the hot, dry period was also mirrored in the horn of Africa, which was devastated by drought.
Meanwhile earthquakes devastated Christchurch, New Zealand, and we must remember the tsunami in Japan, both caused by the movement of the tectonic plates. In every instance we can see the power and the unpredictability of Great Nature.
In the UK the severe winter was followed by an exceptionally warm April. So frost-free was this month that apple blossom thrived and my apple trees produced such a bumper crop that apples formed a layer a foot deep under the trees. This early or late Spring, take your pick, suited some birds and did not suit others, as caterpillars appeared too early for some species.
Article continues below this advert:
What was illustrated clearly was that birds like humans have to adapt. The weather is unpredictable as is also climate. There is no absolute norm.
The Weathershow also went on to mention the sun and insolation, mentioning the sun’s temperature of 5,800° Centigrade, and the fact that the sun is made of plasma. They also used the word ‘insolation’, to describe the radiation from the sun.
Up to this point the Weathershow was admirable. The BBC illustrated clearly the great forces of Nature. One moment the gases of our atmosphere are overwhelmingly cold and the next they are almost unbearably hot. Sometimes the weather is calm and at others winds, hurricanes and tornadoes occur. This is par for the course.
Why then, BBC, did you go and spoil it all? Having clearly illustrated the power of Great Nature you had to put it something so utterly silly that it blew the mind. You mentioned the Climategate emails and brushed them aside. Three enquiries had absolved the Climatic Research Unit of any wrongdoing. Really? That is not the common perception. The new emails did nothing new. True, indeed. They showed once again that the CRU together with others across the Atlantic have conspired to suppress any opinions other than those that support the ideas of ‘man-made’ Global Warming. At least that is the common perception. Here I quote: -
“We have been through a dark time when blacklists of scientists who disagree with the IPCC climate orthodoxy have been drawn up, editors have been threatened with being forced out of their jobs for allowing dissenting papers to be published in journals, correct science which disproves the orthodoxy position has been ignored and witch hunts on skeptical scientists and bloggers have been promoted.”
What is extraordinary to me is that the BBC has clearly illustrated the awesome power of Great Nature and then feels obliged to genuflect before the idea that man has caused it all. How absurd is that!
It is so abundantly clear that man cannot possibly cause any of these mighty phenomena, that the idea that came in at the tail end of the programme, that Greenhouse Gases somehow are causing climate change is simply absurd. On the one hand the BBC illustrated well the almighty power of Great Nature and then felt obliged to toe the Party line and produce some drivel about Global Warming.
Does the BBC not yet realise that the concept of Global Warming has not yet been defined? The Earth is surrounded by an atmosphere in four distinct layers. Is the Thermosphere warming? In fact, the heat content of the Thermosphere is mighty cold at minus 80° Centigrade, yet the very few molecules there are extremely hot. Tell us all, BBC, has man affected the Thermosphere?
If we descend to the level where our own weather occurs, the Troposphere, any traveller by air these days can watch the monitor on board and see the temperatures at 32,000 feet, some minus 50° Celsius. As the plane descends, so the temperature increases. Just how and why does that happen? Why is the top of the Troposphere dead cold, when it is nearer the sun? Why are mountains, like Everest and Mt Blanc covered with snow at their summits, while their bases are quite clear?
The temperature of the atmosphere on Earth varies region by region and by night and day. This is so obvious, so why does the BBC still hold on to that childish idea that Greenhouse Gases could possibly warm the Globe? A real greenhouse may trap heat, in fact any home can trap heat – that is what they are built for – but open the doors and the windows and the gases fly out to mingle with the airs outside. There is a continuum to outer space – the boffins of the Met Office know that well. Even then they persist with a mistaken website, about which I have had an email exchange with Dr Phil Jones.
Far from Greenhouse Gases causing warming, precisely the opposite can be demonstrated. You mentioned Sir David Attenborough, and like you I have enjoyed The Frozen Planet. So he concludes that parts of the Planet may have warmed. That may be, as others have cooled. But why did the ice crack up in the Arctic, when the air temperature was 20° Celsius below? Clearly that could not have happened, because of the atmospheric temperature. At the other end of the Globe Sir David actually mentioned warmer ocean currents causing the ice to melt from below. Perhaps that was a clue.
He is concerned that the Arctic might become ice-free. Why does that concern him? It is a consummation devoutly to be wished. That would infer that vast stretches of Canada and Siberia would become open and not just wilderness. There are huge mineral riches for mankind in those frozen parts. Likewise vast areas of arable and pastureland could be reclaimed for the world’s growing population. Alas, the dream of a Northwest Passage is still remote, in spite of all the scare mongering.
All this nonsense about Climate Justice is enough to make one nauseous, as it is only too clear that poorer countries are trying to blackmail richer ones into handouts. And as to Carbon Dioxide the general public has been lead to believe by endless propaganda that it is the same as smoke. Any Biologist will make clear that we need more CO2, not less, and that plant life could do with some 1,000 ppmv. There must surely be some people at the BBC who know some Biology, and perhaps some who know the basic concepts of Physics.
You seemed to suggest that the Sun was in fact getting hotter and hotter and that this in time would dry up all the water on this Planet. Which way are you arguing? If that were the case then the Sun would be responsible for all warming, and man would be completely absolved. Actually the Sun is responsible in the main part, but the idea that the Sun is getting hotter and hotter defies all logic and all known science.
All experience declares that what is hot always by itself grows cold, from red hot lava, to hot water, everything goes from hot to cold. The Sun itself will in some millions of years run out of its fuel. After all our Sun is a Star with a limited lifetime. We should all thank the Creator of Everything that is, that during our life times the Sun will shine and give us warmth.
And so BBC, let me end with a few question:
1. Can man affect the temperature of the molecules in the Thermosphere? Or its heat content?
2. Can man affect the Adiabatic Lapse Rate?
3. Can man drive the ocean currents?
4. You mentioned the Jetstream being diverted. Can man divert the Jetstream?
5. Can man move the tectonic plates? Can man produce earthquakes?
6. Can man produce at will tornadoes and hurricanes?
7. Can man control the Sun?
You know as well as I do that the answer to all these questions is a resounding No! Man is powerless in face of the great powers of Nature. To imagine that limiting the emissions of Greenhouse Gases is going to affect anything is not only ludicrous but also has been proven to be wrong. Besides which the most abundant Greenhouse Gas is Water Vapour. Any aims to limit that?
January 6th 2012